DOMA and Prop 8. Both History.

[shoju]

SCOTUS ruled today, striking down the key parts of DOMA, calling them Discriminatory, and rejected Prop 8, based on the ideology that a private group of citizens can't defend Prop 8, as they failed to show that they would be injured / damaged without it.

Part of me, Cheers. It's a great day. I'm proud to see that things are moving forward, and we are progressing.

Part of me, realizes there is still much work to do. Equality for all regardless of their Orientation (or any other discriminating factor) still has a LONG way to go.

And part of me, realizes that SCOTUS really highlighted the deep divisions and fractures in this country. They have left Marriage as something to be decided by the states. Never before in my life has the USA felt more like a conglomerate of small countries in a "union" instead of a nation, as it did when I realized that this means that at this point, a marriage can be completely valid in one state, and by crossing an imaginary line in the sand, become invalid, and the spouses looked upon as Sodomites by the government.

And, as all the comedians showed in the months leading up to this, my marriage is now totally invalid (read that last sentence with as much snark and sarcasm as you can possibly muster).

I mean. Jeez. 15 years together, 9 married, and what happened today? Nothing. Nothing changed. She is still my wife, I'm still her husband, we still love each other. I hope that I live to see a day when we stop caring what other people do, how they live, and who they love.

[Mavfin]

And, as all the comedians showed in the months leading up to this, my marriage is now totally invalid (read that last sentence with as much snark and sarcasm as you can possibly muster).

I mean. Jeez. 15 years together, 9 married, and what happened today? Nothing. Nothing changed. She is still my wife, I'm still her husband, we still love each other. I hope that I live to see a day when we stop caring what other people do, how they live, and who they love.

Exactly. Rulings today changed nothing about my 21.5 year marriage, except that perhaps others who couldn't before could also have one if they wished.

[kandrathe]

I mean. Jeez. 15 years together, 9 married, and what happened today? Nothing. Nothing changed. She is still my wife, I'm still her husband, we still love each other. I hope that I live to see a day when we stop caring what other people do, how they live, and who they love.

And, really, what business is it of the government who you love and marry? Well, maybe we need an age of consent, and the no kissing cousins thing seems some what reasonable...

[shoju]

That's been my main thing. Age of Consent, nothing Incestual (since there is valid medical evidence that it's a bad idea), and keep the government out of it at that point.

[bldavis]

discussing this with my mother, her only response was it is against the law of the land...its like really?
that is your ONLY argument?

i agree with you guys too, keep the goverment out of it
i will add that i think the suring of bakeries and churches because they wont do something for your LGBT wedding is a bit much...
it is capitalism at work, they wont provide you a service..it is their choice. they have the right to refuse service to anyone.

that said, you can tell your friends and anyone else that will listen to you how they refused to work with you and it might cost them business.
and besides, no body said you HAD to go through that one church/bakery.

[FireIceTalon]

We've been over this a million times before. The government AIN'T gonna stay out, because the capitalist system, a system of class antagonisms, REQUIRES state intervention for the entire social order to maintain its very existence. All this talk that "if the government would just stay out, the system would work fine" is just libertopia fantasies, and is completely nonsensical. Conservatives/right-wingers want no government involvement when it comes to economics, but want ALL the government in the world regarding social issues - and naive liberals are just the very opposite. Both of them live in fantasy worlds.

What I do worry about though is the fact that now because gays and lesbians can marry, that people will think the problem is solved. Bourgeois values hold that if people are equal before the law, then equality has been realized - though this is also nonsensical as seen in the case with racial minorities. On paper, they are to be treated the same as anyone else before the law, but in practice ofc this is far from the case. It's the same bullshit logic that dipshits like Oprah and Will Smith used when Obama became president ("we got a black president now, so blacks can't make excuses anymore!", as if the oppression and discrimination of minorities suddenly came to a screeching halt upon Obama's election). Also, I think there could be a reactionary backlash in some communities to this decision, which could compound the social stratification of gays and lesbians in those areas (like in areas where there is a stronger religious fervor). Issues like this are not just a political or legal thing, they are a social entity with social repercussions as well, and these correspond to the entire social order (capitalism) that they are structured around. Fuck this system, and its shady, backwards, outdated values.

[LemmingofGlory]

What I do worry about though is the fact that now because gays and lesbians can marry, that people will think the problem is solved.

That is not what happened at all. I think your entire post was just an excuse to condescend to everyone about capitalism again, because you did not pay attention to the rulings.

Also, I think there could be a reactionary backlash in some communities to this decision, which could compound the social stratification of gays and lesbians in those areas. Issues like this are not just a political or legal thing, they are a social entity with social repercussions as well, and these correspond to the entire social order (capitalism) that they are structured around.

It always amazes me how little you say with so many words. If you were a LGBT person living in an area dense in bigotry, you would probably have a much better idea about what kind of "backlash" to expect and how likely it is to happen. Let me be the first to tell you that your intuition in this area is absolute crap. Viewing everything in terms of capitalism yields a feeble model that leaves you blind to other elements at play.

-Lemming

[FireIceTalon]

What I do worry about though is the fact that now because gays and lesbians can marry, that people will think the problem is solved.

That is not what happened at all. I think your entire post was just an excuse to condescend to everyone about capitalism again, because you did not pay attention to the rulings.

Also, I think there could be a reactionary backlash in some communities to this decision, which could compound the social stratification of gays and lesbians in those areas. Issues like this are not just a political or legal thing, they are a social entity with social repercussions as well, and these correspond to the entire social order (capitalism) that they are structured around.

It always amazes me how little you say with so many words. If you were a LGBT person living in an area dense in bigotry, you would probably have a much better idea about what kind of "backlash" to expect and how likely it is to happen. Let me be the first to tell you that your intuition in this area is absolute crap. Viewing everything in terms of capitalism yields a feeble model that leaves you blind to other elements at play.

-Lemming

So I need to be gay or lesbian to make an assessment of the possible social consequences of a political decision regarding the issue? Right, because you provided all the insight to the issue that there is to provide, on this issue or any other political discussion that has taken place on this forum . And you have the audacity to call my "intuition" crap? Puuuulease. Go take a long walk off a short pier.

Think you herped before you derped on that post big time man. I'll tell you whats amazing - the idiocy and naivety of tools like yourself that think the social context of any issue exists in some separate vacuum from how the entire social order and its relationships are arranged. Hint: capitalism, the whole social order in which we live, is what encompasses all elements at play, and thus they are structured around the very social relationships intrinsic to it and its operations. They don't exist as static, individual entities external from one another. Learn to see the forest through the trees, educate yourself, then come talk to me. Hint#2: when that time comes, you would do well to approach me in a much less confrontational, more intelligent way.

[shoju]

No, he's saying that your intuition is crap because you completely derped and didn't pay attention to the rulings, and then went on and on and on and on about how capitalism sucks, when you are completely wrong about what happened.

SCOTUS didn't rule that they can get married. They ruled that Prop 8 wasn't defendable as it was presented, because a group of private citizens can't defend a law without proving that they have a stake in it, and they struck down the part of DOMA that discriminates against a couple that were legally married.

No where in there did they rule that the LGBT can now get married. But good job herping and derping all the way to another chance to try and bash everyone, and make yourself "look" superior. You only accomplished coming off as a big dick, and not too intelligent about the ruling itself.

[kandrathe]

That's been my main thing. Age of Consent, nothing Incestual (since there is valid medical evidence that it's a bad idea), and keep the government out of it at that point.

The mistake the federal or state governments made was creating law codes favoring marriage. Some of them discriminate as if spouses are all frail widowers, and other discriminate in that all child bearing exists within marriage.

We need to re-rationalize the laws where children's parent(s) are favored, if they need to be, and spousal inheritance is taxed, if it needs to be. Help the impoverished, and save the family farms -- keep the family business in the family, etc.

The case striking down DOMA is ironic for the 99 percenters since the plaintiff sued to recover over $500,000 in taxes from a $1.3 million dollar estate. Yes, it is not fair that Edith Windsor had to pay, whereas she wouldn't had she been married to a man, but, then again, is it fair for rich people to avoid estate taxes -- when the working stiff gets stuck with the highest taxes. Estates and capital gains get all the breaks.

The parts of DOMA that were most unfair were related to emigration, and federal spousal accommodations (as in they would take care of some, but not all - even when the people were recognized by their state).

But, for income taxes, well, welcome to the married filing jointly penalty.

[Hammerskjold]

Let me be the first to tell you that your intuition in this area is absolute crap. Viewing everything in terms of capitalism yields a feeble model that leaves you blind to other elements at play.

-Lemming

First of all, I must say this.

Hello! It's been awhile, hope everything else is well with you.

Now then, it's unfortunate that from what I've seen so far with rouge douche here, you won't be the last person that will say that.

But I suspect, he may be in a much more rude awakening should a sliver of reality ever pierce his bubble.

Honestly at this point we can make a drinking game\betting pool, given -any- type of subject, in how many post will Krimson Komrade make the link to the evilz of KKKApitalizm.

Side bets /bonus points if the following happens:

- Rouge Douche declares he 'destroyed' your post. (50pts)

- Rouge Douche just repeats whatever was said, ie: 'NO YOU'RE THE REACTIONARY EXTREMIST!!!11' (50pts)

- Rouge Douche spectacularly fails at reading comprehension, and comes up with a wildly hilarious interpretation that is unique only to his genius, or people with severe head trauma and concussion. (100pts)

- Rouge Douche stomps his feet, slams door and yells 'I HATE YOU YOU BIG MEANIE CAPITALIZTS, holds his breath and crosses his arm until everyone else drops dead. (150pts)

- Rouge Douche herps and derps about Revleft.com. (no points, but alternate costume option unlocked.)

- Rouge Douche antics summons the 'Threadlocker Glue'. (200pts, game session over, option for New Game+ unlocked.)

As for the original topic, I doubt it's completely over, but it is an important step. Though what's with these bill and prop names. It seems most of the ominous omnibus overreaching reacharound laws\proposals, have names that are either cute, like SOPA and PIPA (sounds like names of adorable swedish twins, filled with family fun and hijinx, rated G for everyone!).

DOMA sounds like an Ikea furniture. Prop8 sounds like a male enhancement pill.

[DeeBye]

I'm gonna wave my Canadian flag once again and say that we have the most sensible laws regarding same-sex marriages.

The first part of the Civil Marriage Act makes the definition of marriage gender-neutral. Marriage is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.

The second part says that churches aren't required to perform same-sex marriages if it is against their religious beliefs. That's sensible.

[Alram]

Ignoring the content of Prop 8, and looking at only the procedures or events, we have, if I understand it correctly, a situation where the people in a state voted for and passed an amendment to their state constitution. The executive branch declined to enforce it or defend it in court. Those who were instrumental in getting the state amendment passed were found to have no legal standing.
This would appear to set a precedent that the will of the people can be overturned by an indifferent executive branch or by non elected judges. Has this happened before? Is this a legal precedent that makes anyone else uncomfortable?

[LochnarITB]

The mistake the federal or state governments made was creating law codes favoring marriage. Some of them discriminate as if spouses are all frail widowers, and other discriminate in that all child bearing exists within marriage.

This is what has always struck me about this whole argument. The wheels were set in motion with the very first law ever written based on marriage, whether it benefited or penalized. Most, if not all, arguments against same sex marriage I've heard seem to be based on religious beliefs, but this is a legal issue. Aren't we supposed to have separation of church and state? I have the answer. Return marriage to what it truly is, a religious institution. Throw out any law that references marital status. Throw out any lawsuit against any entity for refusing to perform a marriage ceremony or provide the venue and services. Problem solved, easy peasy .

[eppie]

Well i think it is good to have a special set of laws and rights for two people who get married. What would you do else when problems arise regarding children or inheretance questions. The fact is just that the only legal form of marriage is the one you do in city hall. If you are religious and want to do one in church as well ( because you feel this is the only real one) you go ahead.
( but i guess this is already the case in the us or am i wrong).

[FireIceTalon]

The mistake the federal or state governments made was creating law codes favoring marriage. Some of them discriminate as if spouses are all frail widowers, and other discriminate in that all child bearing exists within marriage.

This is what has always struck me about this whole argument. The wheels were set in motion with the very first law ever written based on marriage, whether it benefited or penalized. Most, if not all, arguments against same sex marriage I've heard seem to be based on religious beliefs, but this is a legal issue. Aren't we supposed to have separation of church and state? I have the answer. Return marriage to what it truly is, a religious institution. Throw out any law that references marital status. Throw out any lawsuit against any entity for refusing to perform a marriage ceremony or provide the venue and services. Problem solved, easy peasy .

I don't think marriage is a religious institution (at least not fundamentally), but rather one based on private property and inheritance of said property, along with the power that comes with it. It is true that in feudal society it was considered against the so-called will of God to be homosexual (and being so back then would probably get you burned at the stake or facing the guillotine if someone found out), which is probably where much of the anti-gay marriage rhetoric in most religious doctrine today stems from. But marriage itself was originally done for purposes of inheritance and the preservation or strengthening of particular bloodlines to private property ownership and power, even well before William of Orange married Mary Henrietta (daughter of Charles I) for such purposes in the mid 1600's. And today, this aspect of the institution of marriage holds true, though naturally the context of it differs under capitalism in a number of respects than in feudalism. It has also been an institution traditionally used by men to assert their social and cultural dominance over women, and thus it plays a major role in patriarchal social structures as well.

I would much prefer to eliminate the institution of marriage entirely - the whole concept is plain silly. If two people love one another, regardless of whether they are gay or straight, why should they have to engage in a particular ceremony to express that love and to be able to reap the benefits of society that those who do not marry cannot? But that is another topic altogether. Marriage is just another artificial social construct, like borders, like countries, nationalities, religions, and to a very large extent, even race, that divides people up into categories as if to differentiate between them, usually in a "normal" or "other" context, with the "others" usually being considered fringe and thus discriminated against or otherwise ostracized in society.

[shoju]

Ignoring the content of Prop 8, and looking at only the procedures or events, we have, if I understand it correctly, a situation where the people in a state voted for and passed an amendment to their state constitution. The executive branch declined to enforce it or defend it in court. Those who were instrumental in getting the state amendment passed were found to have no legal standing.
This would appear to set a precedent that the will of the people can be overturned by an indifferent executive branch or by non elected judges. Has this happened before? Is this a legal precedent that makes anyone else uncomfortable?

The problem is, they failed to show proof that they would be harmed by Prop 8 being canned. Nothing they did demonstrated that they had the legal standing to intervene.

It's a weird position. It doesn't matter if they were the people who got the law passed, they aren't the government. And if you are going to defend a law, you have to be the government, or show that you have a legitimate stake in the law.

[ShadowHM]

I have the answer. Return marriage to what it truly is, a religious institution. Throw out any law that references marital status. Throw out any lawsuit against any entity for refusing to perform a marriage ceremony or provide the venue and services. Problem solved, easy peasy .

Easy peasy eh?

There are, quite literally, hundreds of statutes that involve the word marriage, giving legal (secular) rights and obligations. These are, most emphatically, not mere religious precepts. They are logical legal underpinnings to support those who have made committments to each other.

We, the people, have asked for these laws. They were not made for religious reasons. They were made because they made sense for secular reasons. The overlap with religion is certainly there because the growth of large and monotheistic religions occurred at the same time as the growth of state governments.

It was of major importance to me that when my husband died, I was automatically the owner of our home and had automatic use of his assets, without waiting for probate. It was of huge importance to me and my children that when my husband lay dying in a hospital emergency unit, I was consulted on what was to happen next. The children were automatically mine to make education and other decisions about.

If you really do think it is a logical and 'easy' thing to remove the word marriage from all those statutes and substitute some other 'religiously correct' word, then you will need to spend a lot of your tax dollars on it.

Religions already get far too much of a tax break in both our countries. I don't feel like spending more tax dollars to appease their sqeamishness about a word that they do not and should not own.

As DeeBye said above, I think my country got it right.

[Tal]

Oh look - another debate that showed promise getting dragged down into a cesspit courtesy of the Communist Agenda.

And you have the audacity to call my "intuition" crap? Puuuulease. Go take a long walk off a short pier.

Think you herped before you derped on that post big time man. I'll tell you whats amazing - the idiocy and naivety of tools like yourself that think the social context of any issue exists in some separate vacuum from how the entire social order and its relationships are arranged. Hint#2: when that time comes, you would do well to approach me in a much less confrontational, more intelligent way.

FIT - please stop attacking the poster and start debating the issues or we'll end up with another promising thread getting locked because you can't control yourself. Also please take your own advice and stop approaching every interaction as a confrontation.

Thanks

[Bun-Bun]

Ignoring the content of Prop 8, and looking at only the procedures or events, we have, if I understand it correctly, a situation where the people in a state voted for and passed an amendment to their state constitution. The executive branch declined to enforce it or defend it in court. Those who were instrumental in getting the state amendment passed were found to have no legal standing.

This isn't really correct. I don't think there was any failure of enforcement, and the state defended it up to (but not including) the Ninth Circuit.

This would appear to set a precedent that the will of the people can be overturned by an indifferent executive branch or by non elected judges. Has this happened before? Is this a legal precedent that makes anyone else uncomfortable?

Here's where you go off the rails. A precedent? Like the Supreme Court hasn't ever, ever overruled anything, never gone against popular opinion? That's what they're there for, to ensure the rights of the minority are not trampled by the majority. The will of the people does not determine the rights of the governed.

Additionally, the unelected state of judges is intended to place them outside the pressures of pandering to political interests and place them above the fickle winds of public opinion. If you think electing judges is better, take a look at Texas.

As for the executive branch being indifferent, you say "indifferent", I say "principled", or more likely "politically savvy". They are, despite your rather obsolete sense of the "will of the people", bending to the will of the people by not defending Prop8.